Haryana

StateCommission

A/156/2015

M.R.M AUTOS(P) LTD. AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI PAL - Opp.Party(s)

SURESH KALIA

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.156  of 2015

Date of the Institution: 16.02.2015

Date of Decision: 05.10.2016

 

1.      M.R.M. Autos (P) Ltd. Loharu Road,Charkhi Dadri,District  Bhiwani, Haryana, through its Authorized signatory.

2.      Honda Motors Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Haryana, through its Authorised signatory.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Jai Pal S/o Sh.Shubh Ram R/o Village Nihalgarh,Tehsil Charkhi Dadri,Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana.

                                                                            .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Suresh Kalia, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he  purchased Honda Dream Yoga  for Rs.47237/- from Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1. on 30.09.2012 with warranty/guarantee of 2+3 years. The vehicle was defective from very beginning as some sound started coming from the engine.  On 01.12.2012 he visited respondent No.1 for second service, but, O.P. did not rectify the manufacturing defect.  The vehicle was also got checked  from Shri Krishna Auto, near Hanuman Mandir, Sohna Road, Dharuhera. He also told that there was manufacturing defect in the motor cycle.  Legal notice was served through his counsel, but, to no effect. Due to manufacturing defect in vehicle, he suffered mentally physically and financial losses.  Thus there was unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments.  O.P. No.1 alleged that as per instructions of the company customer should have  got done first free service within  30 days or 750 to 1000 Kilometers whichever is earlier from the date of purchase, but, he got done first free service done when vehicle had already covered 1113 kilometers. 

3.      O.P. No.2 alleged that two wheelers were manufactured with 100% technological support.  Complainant breached the warranty terms and conditions as he got done first free service after covering 1000 kilometers.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 05.01.2015 and directed respondent No.2 as under:-

“1.     To replace the engine of the Motor Cycle with same model/quality without charging any amount with fresh warranty.

2.      To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

3.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

 

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.  have preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File persued.

7.      The counsel for the respondent-complainant vehemently argued that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle since very beginning as  there was loud sound in the engine, so opposite parties be directed to  refund  the price of vehicle alongwith interest and other expenses .

8.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties vehemently argued that he breached the terms and condition of  Information-cum-service book as he got first free service done after 1113 kilometers. 

9.      There is no evidence of manufacturing defect in the vehicle . On the basis of Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 it cannot be presumed that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. To prove manufacturing defect there should be expert report as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.131 of 2003 titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nalia Narsimha Rao decided on 11.02.2009.  Mere leakage is no ground to presume that there was manufacturing defect. Since the abnormal noise was coming from engine, learned District Forum has directed to replace the engine.  So impugned order dated 05.01.2015 cannot be sustained  and in the interest of justice, the same is modified to the effect that appellants will repair the engine free of costs if complainant takes it to the workshop within one month from receipt of order and they will not be liable to pay compensation and litigation charges as ordered by learned District Forum.

10.    Appeal is modified accordingly.                                          

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.6100/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification.

 

October 05th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.